From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B26CF48124A; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:39:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782985187; cv=none; b=qte26H5/tJlUdjWW/KCgDibi+MVXIosJNMmGBz6FVSywaiI3dMAb9bd2F6cLTrVmHzoQ+0i1FegarKflHD9SQGwKikNPmUpRvy9r21AkwuPZFp1MmIX6jbvOdaZy5Ozm3N7S377YQL9ex0dI7izWHjIWrwXUv3KZZtkLyKxdis4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782985187; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Qo30EqWrxVCrRg0xcaCObbpmEEqIF+sHKR0pH6GBq6k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=X/kplg6ERFbErwBKiOkrJyZlVHGGVJezgzrgveCuWPN7kdmtF86Av8a9JDdWXlXlH6hIQ6SyZ0B0yZNBeV6AhIFl7G6fQFImrd2/rT90nby34z8ifRN6HAKVluUI+DQNTniYpX0CwPmIJrjyPXWfmT2HkEto7fwUqZVOUCGskb0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=MZRJuKCS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="MZRJuKCS" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 324681F000E9; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:39:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1782985186; bh=Qo30EqWrxVCrRg0xcaCObbpmEEqIF+sHKR0pH6GBq6k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=MZRJuKCSmZkcnyGB+1Sg/LTcY100vTyBFQgFrO3zLuwj1f73EiOd8xc9vTh0lgoet u3mTY8TVyYOuNiGnK1QnknUXNW9sjIygqrEkwxAn9xMb90IsfSAyTco7vgr6fL0FFH duAKW9EPxy+sKlvW7q+wSZwylY8X6L9pmt5DYym3PW1NWVZ+CDRNdC94Mt+C+FfcMR U4ONb9+lRVDx4a+EDOovjqJPv7ddvv7Esez2gs/EhcH4FYrrV2c0h66HuVVCdSTg8F HQDB6lPFrU/PU5/0Ve7vB0CvURBR/KQPsOYx5Sqs513l4xCkQoWOrBN+Eq22nGLiZ2 1V6k/7xCPGtUQ== Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 10:39:36 +0100 From: Lorenzo Stoakes To: Jori Koolstra Cc: "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" , Christian Brauner , Linus Torvalds , Jonathan Corbet , Jens Axboe , David Hildenbrand , Jeff Layton , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] coding-assistants: simplify attribution Message-ID: References: <20260701-work-coding-assistants-v1-1-a20a94d1d606@kernel.org> <1468431527.3731104.1782983377190@kpc.webmail.kpnmail.nl> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1468431527.3731104.1782983377190@kpc.webmail.kpnmail.nl> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 11:09:37AM +0200, Jori Koolstra wrote: > > > Op 02-07-2026 10:44 CEST schreef Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) : > > > > > > On 7/2/26 10:12, Jori Koolstra wrote: > > > Ah, I still reigniting this discussion again :) > > > > > > What about a combination of what David and Jeff say? The whole point > > > seems to me that the salient information is not that an LLM was used (or > > > are we going to tag Sashiko as well or any other LLM-based code review > > > tool?), but what is was used to do. This information may be relevant for > > > how the review is approached. The latter should perhaps only be in the > > > cover letter and then we can drop the assisted-by tags altogether. > > > > > > The question about enforcement remains. > > > > It's not possible to enforce it. People can deny it if the tag is missing > > and you confront them and even though the submission has many signs of being > > obviously LLM, there is no definite proof. We've seen (likely, as there's no > > proof!) that happen in mm. > > > > Maintainers should be free to ignore what they perceive as slop without needing > to defend that call. Reputation can be gained by submitting useful work or > being present in the community, attending conferences, giving talks, etc. > I am not saying that we should be harsh on beginning contributors (or I would > have to count myself out as well), but they should be as free as possible to > only invest their time in the project and people that may become involved in the > community. And that call is up to them. Yup agreed, however I have had the experience of doing exactly this and then being second-guessed enormously, which was exhausting honestly. So we need total clarity that it's OK to do this. I guess this is partly a subsystem-by-subsystem thing though. > > I try to review fix-up patches of first-time contributors, but if it reeks of > AI I don't bother. We have the same policy in the kernel mentorship program, > we invest time to help people get involved with the community and kernel, not > to let someone strike "kernel contributor" of their list. The whole point is > not that most of this clean-up work is super useful (and indeed an LLM can do it), > but to let someone feel excited about contributing and maybe getting them to > to stick around. Yup agreed :) > > > Such situation then penalizes those who disclose so obviously they won't. We > > should drop the tag and instead think how we can empower maintainers to be > > able to use their own judgment and deprioritize dealing with what they > > perceive as LLM slop, without fearing consequences of not being properly > > responsible etc, and not rely on any non-enforceable tags for that. Thanks, Lorenzo